MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093288239 · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-74670-0

Differential processing of dissolved and particulate organic matter by deep-sea sponges and their microbial symbionts

2020· article· en· W3093288239 on OpenAlexafffund
Martijn C. Bart, Anna de Kluijver, Sean Hoetjes, Samira Absalah, Benjamin Mueller, Ellen Kenchington, Hans Tore Rapp, Jasper M. de Goeij

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMarine Sponges and Natural Products
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersDirectorate for Biological SciencesFisheries and Oceans CanadaUniversitetet i BergenExecutive Agency for Small and Medium-sized EnterprisesUniversiteit van AmsterdamEuropean Commission
KeywordsParticulatesDeep seaParticulate organic carbonOrganic matterDissolved organic carbonParticulate organic matterDifferential (mechanical device)OceanographyEnvironmental scienceEcologyEnvironmental chemistryBiologyChemistryGeologyNutrient

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Deep-sea sponges create hotspots of biodiversity and biological activity in the otherwise barren deep-sea. However, it remains elusive how sponge hosts and their microbial symbionts acquire and process food in these food-limited environments. Therefore, we traced the processing (i.e. assimilation and respiration) of 13 C- and 15 N-enriched dissolved organic matter (DOM) and bacteria by three dominant North Atlantic deep-sea sponges: the high microbial abundance (HMA) demosponge Geodia barretti , the low microbial abundance (LMA) demosponge Hymedesmia paupertas , and the LMA hexactinellid Vazella pourtalesii . We also assessed the assimilation of both food sources into sponge- and bacteria-specific phospholipid-derived fatty acid (PLFA) biomarkers. All sponges were capable of assimilating DOM as well as bacteria. However, processing of the two food sources differed considerably between the tested species: the DOM assimilation-to-respiration efficiency was highest for the HMA sponge, yet uptake rates were 4–5 times lower compared to LMA sponges. In contrast, bacteria were assimilated most efficiently and at the highest rate by the hexactinellid compared to the demosponges. Our results indicate that phylogeny and functional traits (e.g., abundance of microbial symbionts, morphology) influence food preferences and diet composition of sponges, which further helps to understand their role as key ecosystem engineers of deep-sea habitats.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.194 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations65
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicMarine Sponges and Natural ProductsFrench-language works237,207